A4 is only 6mm wider than Letter and about 2cm shorter. It fits just fine in North American binders as long as the holes are punched at the correct spacing.
If a company makes no money, then the company doesn't pay taxes... the owner still pays taxes based on his income though.. If he invested more of his money than what was supposed to only be his net income after taxes, that's his own problem... it's no different than being self-employed and spending everything (or too much) of what you make instead of setting aside the appropriate amount for taxation purposes. I know people who were badly bitten by doing that, and it's a mess that they made for themselves.
It's an interview... they aren't interested in you at all yet... they are interested only in getting the open position filled, and finding the most suitable candidate. Part of that suitability is wage expectation, and if they choose to do it by asking you what you made on your last job, they are finding out only if they will be able to take advantage of you by underpaying you.
They could probably fix that problem by not allowing any tax deductions to move a person into a different tax bracket than what they would be in if they had no deductions at all. Your tax bracket is fixed, based wholly on your gross income, and you can can deductions off of that, but the percentage of tax that you pay remains the same. Since there are rather hard limits on the amounts that you can claim for various deductions, this would leave the wealthy still paying the highest percentage of tax.
1x10^171... sorry. when I pasted it into a command line to count the characters with wc, I knew to remove the commas with sed, but apparently there was a blank in the middle there as well.
Yeah, we get it... it's a big number. But writing it out longhand like that is just being needlessly cryptic... and at worst comes across as having been written by somebody who doesn't know shit about the actual number of combinations, and just decided to put a lot of zeros after the end of a 1 to make a number that sounds big. Try 1x10^172. This is far more readable, and those that know scientific notation will be able to understand just how big this number is.
If you really feel that this doesn't adequately describe the scale of the number to people who don't know scientific notation, and want your article to be comprehensible to those people as well, then you can also add that it is considerably greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. And to be frank, if that doesn't convey just how fucking big the number is, then explicitly writing 172 zeros after a 1 isn't liable to either.
If you answer plainly, you were probably satisfied with the amount. If you try and dodge the question, you were probably not satisfied with the amount.
The only reason for an interviewer to ask a question about a person's previous salary is if they are trying to indirectly ascertain how satisfied that person is with the salary that they were making.
If you answer plainly, then you communicate to the interviewer that you are or were satisfied with the salary, and if an interviewer is asking so that they can find the least expensive employee to hire, any increase over the amount you tell them is liable to be quite small.
Trying to dodge the question by telling the employer how much you want to make when they've specifically asked how much you were making communicates to the interviewer that you are dissatisfied with your previous pay and any figure that you do give them is actually somewhat more than what you are actually willing to work for.
I didn't say we should stop what we are doing... I said that what we are doing isn't going to stop it, and preaching more of the same stuff isn't going to change the minds of those that it might need to.
You see, most people believe whatever the hell they want to believe, or whatever makes them the most comfortable. Facts and science won't make an iota of difference to this.... only the cold, hard, first-hand experience of the consequences of failure will do that, and because nobody who is alive today will live long enough to really see that to any great degree, and by the time we are looking at enough changes to actually change people's minds, it *really* will be too late to physically change it.
Sort of, yes... although it's less a matter of physical impossibility than a practical one.... the problem is less about fixing global warming than changing the minds of people who either do not care or simply do not believe in the facts behind global warming. You cannot change another person's mind by hoping they will see your point of view and when they've already shown resistance to change when presented with enough facts to ordinarily convince someone who had retained a healthy dose of scientific skepticism, it's evident that the only thing that will ever convince them (if anything) is first hand experience of the consequences of their indecision.
Of course, none of the people alive today are going to live long enough for that to really happen, so by the time it actually might be enough to convince them that they should have listened, it *WILL* be too late.
And it's pretty hard to be disappointed when you are already expecting the worst.
So maybe we should be trying to prepare ourselves for that.
Technology, perhaps... money, probably. Willpower? Not so much... at least from those with the ability to change it. The necessary combined willpower and ability that it would take from a significant number of people to fix global warming simply does not exist... the people that care the most about this are virtually powerless to change it, and those that might have the ability don't care enough, and you can't make them care by simply repeating the same stuff they've already heard or showing them more science that proves what is going to happen eventually... they simply don't care, or will believe that the science is wrong. It's clear to me that the only way they will learn is by experiencing the hard consequences of being wrong. By that time, of course, it really *will* be far too late.
IF you are a college graduate who cannot find a job above the poverty line, you are doing something wrong...
I've heard that before, but nobody who actually knew my situation at the time could tell me what I was doing wrong. I had a degree in a field that was clearly in demand, I was living in a city that had no shortage of jobs available for that field, and my schooling was just fine.
The only thing that I was doing wrong was that I simply wasn't getting the job offers. In the beginning I'd often make it for the second and sometimes third interviews, but in the end, I'd always get passed up for one of the hundreds or sometimes thousands of applicants for a single job.
And after about 2 years after graduation even the interviews started getting sparser and sparser. So-called experts that I spoke to pointed to the growing gap in my resume as the culprit, where I hadn't done anything in my field since graduation other than work on open source projects and games, but there was nothing I could do to change that other than lie, which I was not willing to do. I was taking whatever jobs I could get to survive, but when you are applying for a computer programming job, wasting space on the resume mentioning that you are a delivery driver for KFC or whatever is not going to help. Just over 5 after my graduation and well over a thousand or so cover letters and resumes later, I landed my first real job in my field (as a computer game developer, in fact) after graduation, and since then, other than an 8 month unemployment stint in 2010/2011, I have been fairly steadily employed in my field. It's a happy ending for me... but not everyone is so lucky. Doubtless, that experience has given me more empathy for people who might have perfectly useful degrees and still be unable to find work.
I might suggest that you try having a little more compassion for your fellow man than that of a lifeless piece of rock.
And yes, luck. Perseverance and effort are a given, but you still have to be lucky enough to find an employer that will actually choose to hire you out of the hundreds or sometimes thousands of other applicants for a single job opening.
#0) You want to show your support for the continuing production of certain types of movies by big movie studios by attending the ones that interest you the most.
Now granted, Hollywood does put out a lot of trash as well, but there are usually a small handful of ones that interest me nearly every year, and I have no problem being part of the voice that tells the makers of these films to keep doing more of the same.
There is nothing else that I want from the movie-theater experience that I could not obtain at home.
....unless you are making poverty level income, it's possible.
And there's the ticket, you see...
Because there's a whole lot of people who *are* making poverty level incomes, not because they necessarily don't have the qualifications for anything better, but because that's the best they can find at the time, and even poverty is better than homelessness.
I lived on a poverty-level income for nearly 15 years.... 6 of which I spent getting a post secondary education. It wasn't until 5 years after I graduated that I found a job that paid me well enough that I could even *start* to pay back my student loan. I'm not saying that to make anyone feel sorry for me, I'm saying that because I had a perfectly useful degree, and I just could not find work. Fortunately, I was meticulously paying attention to the status of my loan the entire time, and kept applying for interest relief as each 6 month period expired so as to not allow the loan to go into default.
And frankly, I think I'm one of the lucky ones... I did find a job that allowed me to ultimately repay that loan, over time... not everyone does.
Obviously.... but landing that job, even after getting a degree, can be tricky, and often a matter of luck more than anything else. For myself, it took 5 years after graduating before I was making enough money that I no longer qualified for interest relief on my student loan and could actually *start* to pay it back. Took me another 9 years on top of that to finish paying for it.
How on earth does the average student end up owing $34K at the end of 4 years?
Because the average student that needs to borrow anything often needs to borrow more than just tuition costs.... and trying to go to school full time or nearly full time while holding down a job where you work enough to be able to support yourself and pay for schooling isn't always viable for everybody.
Considering that university programs usually have entrance requirements that are often measured in terms of prior academic performance, I'd say that your assessment that colleges can't reject people because they don't seem smart enough to succeed is false.
Eventually, yes.. but not anytime soon. I believe that your supposed projection of it being as soon as you say is naively optimistic except in the communities that have already shown a lot of progress in this regard, which are the exception and not the rule. Remember, it took literally a century before automotive cars replaced the horse.... this kind of change will simply not happen swiftly... and I believe that people who expect otherwise are only setting themselves up for a lot of disappointment in the decades to come.
The crux of the failure in your line of reasoning is that you appear to think that most owners are progressive thinkers.... in my experience they are not. Most condo owners I have encountered are cheap bastards who are perfectly happy with any inexpensive solution that does not create an inconvenience for them. This is not only my experience in every strata complex that I have ever lived, it is also the experience of absolutely anyone else that I know that has lived in a strata complex. Of course, this isn't a problem if you live in a house, but then you are looking at prices that are sometimes 3-4 times as much, often even more, and likely not achievable for those who have found owning a condo to be adequate in the first place. Oh, many condo owners would certainly love to have electric chargers so they could get an electric vehicle, but most aren't willing to front the thousands of dollars in assessments that it will cost them, and most wouldn't be willing to move their parking space either to allow a charger to be installed there for someone else to use unless there was some other advantage for them, personally. You entirely overlook and discount the human tendency to be selfish and to often stubbornly or even ignorantly resist change, and the minority of progressive thinkers of this generation is simply not influential enough at this time to overcome that. Only time will change this... as much of the older generation of people who currently own their homes dies off and a younger generation replaces them that was raised with the necessary ideals to make it a reality... but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen because it's not anytime soon. I'd place it probably before the turn of the next century, but I can't say I expect to be around that long.
I live in Canada, by the way... I assumed that might have been obvious given the reference I cited and linked to from plugndrive.ca.
I think that this quote from a Gizmodo article puts the problem in perspective.
It is getting a little better, though. When Tesla launched its first car in 2008, there were about 500 charging locations nationwide; now there's at least 30,000 public outlets. But trying to convince businesses to invest in charging stations that will benefit less than one percent of their customers is a tough job. And filling up your "tank" in an EV is not like pumping gas. You have to physically plug the car in and leave it somewhere, sometimes for hours. Ideally this would happen while you're at home, during off-peak hours for the grid. But those who travel long distances, or live in an apartment without a garage, must rely on charging spots that are part of the urban infrastructure -- and they're not always in places that people need them.
the point being made is that it is not hard at all to add a number of charging stations to almost every garage.
Private above-ground garages, yes... underground shared concrete parkade parking not so much.... In a condo situation where each stall is individually owned (I prefer to restrict the issue at hand only to owned, rather than rented properties, because renters have very little choice or say in how their property might get developed), if you install only a couple of them in a visitor parking area, then the demand would quickly grow to exceed its availability, necessitating that more be installed. It is cheapest, to install as many as will ever be needed for the foreseeable future, but that means installing them in the stalls for the residents, which is grossly unfair to owners that did not get an electric outlet in their own stall, not to mention being an unpopular idea among those who had not considered previously considered getting an electric car (even though they very might if the facilities were already available for them..... people love to mooch, after all).
The only fair thing is to install metered electrical outlets in each stall, and where there is no existing wiring or often not even the electrical infrastructure to support it (requiring the municipality to bring in more electrical infrastructure to a community that may have been around for fifty to a hundred years or more), this is *NOT* cheap. A building in an older part of a large city that has high density population could cost upwards of a million dollars to properly upgrade, and this results in an assessment (on the order of about $10k) on all of the owners that only those with intention to buy an electric car in the near future would benefit from. Considering that strata regulations (governed federally) require 75% or more approval from all owners to approve such an assesssment unless the expenditure was required by law, guess how long it will be before that happens? It wouldn't be happening any sooner than before the lack of such charging facilities made the units unsellable.
I suggest you do more research then.
Thisk is the research I have done on costs which estimates that costs for installation would run anywhere from $5600 to over $15k per stall, depending on the amount of infrastructure that already exists to support it. Older communities will tend towards the more expensive side of things due to the lack of existing infrastructure. Newer buildings have the facilities, but most do not.
Of course, you may be inclined to discount the entire country where I live as some kind of backwater nation, but don't assume that I wouldn't find such an evaluation to be a bit insulting.
Since you mentioned that most apartment dwellers wont even own cars in 20 years, I'd like to point out that *still* leaves no incentive for apartment owners of most currently existing buildings to *ever* install EV facilities, because they will always only potentially be of benefit to a tiny few. Even then, it will still often be more economical for people to own their own car than ride share, just as it is more economical to drive than to take a cab. Public transit may be cheaper than owning and driving a car, but may be considerably less convenient, because there may not be a direct transit route to one's place of work and what is already a 25 minute commute time is doubled or tripled (although truly this depends on where one works vs where one lives.... I used to work at one place where I could hop on the transit and be at work in 20 minutes door to door, and driving offered no real savings over this).
Sincerely, however, if there were a place for me to charge it overnight, I'd have no qualms at all with an EV being my next car.... and given that a lot of people *do* live in multiunit dwellings that *were* built more than about 10 years or so when the infrastructure for supporting these kinds of facilities started getting put in while the building is being built, I do not think I am an atypical use case.
The changeover to electric vehicles will eventually happen, sure... but it is happening slowly, and I'd be shocked as hell if it ever going to be practical in my lifetime. I'm not saying that because that's what I want, I'm saying that because I think that believing otherwise is simply too idealistic a viewpoint to be rationally sustainable... Isolated examples might exist of exceptions to this in very progressive areas, but they are not typically reflective of most metropolitan areas that may have many multi-family buildings such as apartments or condos that are 50 years older or more with concrete-enclosed underground parking, that are still in excellent condition and have many decades of life left and are not going anywhere.
Actually, given that more than 75% of the people in my metro area (and many others, for that matter) live in apartments or condos, and of those, only a very tiny minority live in buildings that were constructed recently enough (past 10 years or so) to adopt the newer guidelines of having electrical outlets in each parking stall, I don't think that my use case is that atypical. It's not an insurmountable issue for people with private garages, but many people do not have those.
I'm reminded of an anecdote. from wired. The point is well made.. at a line-up in a gas-station, each person you are behind is going to cost you maybe 5 minutes of your time, while at an electric charging station, you may as well just leave and try to find another one somewhere else because unless you are next, it could be hours before you get to charge.
And in a kind of catch-22, the rate at which new public charging stations are added is limited by the number of electric cars out there, and the number of people who buy electric cars is going to be limited by the availability of convenient charging outlets.
Sure it will probably happen eventually.... but remember, it took over a century for motorized vehicles to become the norm over horses. I would be very surprised if the existing inertia of using a gasoline infrastructure were to be overcome in my lifetime.
No... not at all... It is further entirely incorrect to assume that the people who do not vote intended to side with what the majority turned out to be.... at most you might assume that they intended to side with what they *believed* before the vote that the majority would actually vote for. Given how tight the actual vote was, it is a tenuous proposition to presume that what happened was actually what most people truly believed would happen. This may very well be true, but it is very nearly as likely (48% vs 52%, based on the vote outcome) that it is not, and a probability that close to 50% when there are only two choices makes it impossible to meaningfully infer or predict anything.
Thus, as I said... the results of the vote are simply the results of a democratic process... any similarity between the outcome and the actual will of the people may be fortunate, but is truly quite coincidental,
Slashdot Mirror
A4 is only 6mm wider than Letter and about 2cm shorter. It fits just fine in North American binders as long as the holes are punched at the correct spacing.
If a company makes no money, then the company doesn't pay taxes... the owner still pays taxes based on his income though.. If he invested more of his money than what was supposed to only be his net income after taxes, that's his own problem... it's no different than being self-employed and spending everything (or too much) of what you make instead of setting aside the appropriate amount for taxation purposes. I know people who were badly bitten by doing that, and it's a mess that they made for themselves.
It's an interview... they aren't interested in you at all yet... they are interested only in getting the open position filled, and finding the most suitable candidate. Part of that suitability is wage expectation, and if they choose to do it by asking you what you made on your last job, they are finding out only if they will be able to take advantage of you by underpaying you.
They could probably fix that problem by not allowing any tax deductions to move a person into a different tax bracket than what they would be in if they had no deductions at all. Your tax bracket is fixed, based wholly on your gross income, and you can can deductions off of that, but the percentage of tax that you pay remains the same. Since there are rather hard limits on the amounts that you can claim for various deductions, this would leave the wealthy still paying the highest percentage of tax.
1x10^171... sorry. when I pasted it into a command line to count the characters with wc, I knew to remove the commas with sed, but apparently there was a blank in the middle there as well.
Yeah, we get it... it's a big number. But writing it out longhand like that is just being needlessly cryptic... and at worst comes across as having been written by somebody who doesn't know shit about the actual number of combinations, and just decided to put a lot of zeros after the end of a 1 to make a number that sounds big. Try 1x10^172. This is far more readable, and those that know scientific notation will be able to understand just how big this number is.
If you really feel that this doesn't adequately describe the scale of the number to people who don't know scientific notation, and want your article to be comprehensible to those people as well, then you can also add that it is considerably greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. And to be frank, if that doesn't convey just how fucking big the number is, then explicitly writing 172 zeros after a 1 isn't liable to either.
If you answer plainly, you were probably satisfied with the amount. If you try and dodge the question, you were probably not satisfied with the amount.
The only reason for an interviewer to ask a question about a person's previous salary is if they are trying to indirectly ascertain how satisfied that person is with the salary that they were making.
If you answer plainly, then you communicate to the interviewer that you are or were satisfied with the salary, and if an interviewer is asking so that they can find the least expensive employee to hire, any increase over the amount you tell them is liable to be quite small.
Trying to dodge the question by telling the employer how much you want to make when they've specifically asked how much you were making communicates to the interviewer that you are dissatisfied with your previous pay and any figure that you do give them is actually somewhat more than what you are actually willing to work for.
I didn't say we should stop what we are doing... I said that what we are doing isn't going to stop it, and preaching more of the same stuff isn't going to change the minds of those that it might need to.
You see, most people believe whatever the hell they want to believe, or whatever makes them the most comfortable. Facts and science won't make an iota of difference to this.... only the cold, hard, first-hand experience of the consequences of failure will do that, and because nobody who is alive today will live long enough to really see that to any great degree, and by the time we are looking at enough changes to actually change people's minds, it *really* will be too late to physically change it.
Sort of, yes... although it's less a matter of physical impossibility than a practical one.... the problem is less about fixing global warming than changing the minds of people who either do not care or simply do not believe in the facts behind global warming. You cannot change another person's mind by hoping they will see your point of view and when they've already shown resistance to change when presented with enough facts to ordinarily convince someone who had retained a healthy dose of scientific skepticism, it's evident that the only thing that will ever convince them (if anything) is first hand experience of the consequences of their indecision.
Of course, none of the people alive today are going to live long enough for that to really happen, so by the time it actually might be enough to convince them that they should have listened, it *WILL* be too late.
And it's pretty hard to be disappointed when you are already expecting the worst.
So maybe we should be trying to prepare ourselves for that.
Technology, perhaps... money, probably. Willpower? Not so much... at least from those with the ability to change it. The necessary combined willpower and ability that it would take from a significant number of people to fix global warming simply does not exist... the people that care the most about this are virtually powerless to change it, and those that might have the ability don't care enough, and you can't make them care by simply repeating the same stuff they've already heard or showing them more science that proves what is going to happen eventually... they simply don't care, or will believe that the science is wrong. It's clear to me that the only way they will learn is by experiencing the hard consequences of being wrong. By that time, of course, it really *will* be far too late.
not necessarily. Humanity may yet survive even this crisis. we do have a high adaptability, after all.
No....it can't be fixed. Believing otherwise is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
I've heard that before, but nobody who actually knew my situation at the time could tell me what I was doing wrong. I had a degree in a field that was clearly in demand, I was living in a city that had no shortage of jobs available for that field, and my schooling was just fine.
The only thing that I was doing wrong was that I simply wasn't getting the job offers. In the beginning I'd often make it for the second and sometimes third interviews, but in the end, I'd always get passed up for one of the hundreds or sometimes thousands of applicants for a single job.
And after about 2 years after graduation even the interviews started getting sparser and sparser. So-called experts that I spoke to pointed to the growing gap in my resume as the culprit, where I hadn't done anything in my field since graduation other than work on open source projects and games, but there was nothing I could do to change that other than lie, which I was not willing to do. I was taking whatever jobs I could get to survive, but when you are applying for a computer programming job, wasting space on the resume mentioning that you are a delivery driver for KFC or whatever is not going to help. Just over 5 after my graduation and well over a thousand or so cover letters and resumes later, I landed my first real job in my field (as a computer game developer, in fact) after graduation, and since then, other than an 8 month unemployment stint in 2010/2011, I have been fairly steadily employed in my field. It's a happy ending for me... but not everyone is so lucky. Doubtless, that experience has given me more empathy for people who might have perfectly useful degrees and still be unable to find work.
I might suggest that you try having a little more compassion for your fellow man than that of a lifeless piece of rock.
Computer science actually
And yes, luck. Perseverance and effort are a given, but you still have to be lucky enough to find an employer that will actually choose to hire you out of the hundreds or sometimes thousands of other applicants for a single job opening.
#0) You want to show your support for the continuing production of certain types of movies by big movie studios by attending the ones that interest you the most.
Now granted, Hollywood does put out a lot of trash as well, but there are usually a small handful of ones that interest me nearly every year, and I have no problem being part of the voice that tells the makers of these films to keep doing more of the same.
There is nothing else that I want from the movie-theater experience that I could not obtain at home.
And there's the ticket, you see...
Because there's a whole lot of people who *are* making poverty level incomes, not because they necessarily don't have the qualifications for anything better, but because that's the best they can find at the time, and even poverty is better than homelessness.
I lived on a poverty-level income for nearly 15 years.... 6 of which I spent getting a post secondary education. It wasn't until 5 years after I graduated that I found a job that paid me well enough that I could even *start* to pay back my student loan. I'm not saying that to make anyone feel sorry for me, I'm saying that because I had a perfectly useful degree, and I just could not find work. Fortunately, I was meticulously paying attention to the status of my loan the entire time, and kept applying for interest relief as each 6 month period expired so as to not allow the loan to go into default.
And frankly, I think I'm one of the lucky ones... I did find a job that allowed me to ultimately repay that loan, over time... not everyone does.
Obviously.... but landing that job, even after getting a degree, can be tricky, and often a matter of luck more than anything else. For myself, it took 5 years after graduating before I was making enough money that I no longer qualified for interest relief on my student loan and could actually *start* to pay it back. Took me another 9 years on top of that to finish paying for it.
Because the average student that needs to borrow anything often needs to borrow more than just tuition costs.... and trying to go to school full time or nearly full time while holding down a job where you work enough to be able to support yourself and pay for schooling isn't always viable for everybody.
Considering that university programs usually have entrance requirements that are often measured in terms of prior academic performance, I'd say that your assessment that colleges can't reject people because they don't seem smart enough to succeed is false.
Eventually, yes.. but not anytime soon. I believe that your supposed projection of it being as soon as you say is naively optimistic except in the communities that have already shown a lot of progress in this regard, which are the exception and not the rule. Remember, it took literally a century before automotive cars replaced the horse.... this kind of change will simply not happen swiftly... and I believe that people who expect otherwise are only setting themselves up for a lot of disappointment in the decades to come.
The crux of the failure in your line of reasoning is that you appear to think that most owners are progressive thinkers.... in my experience they are not. Most condo owners I have encountered are cheap bastards who are perfectly happy with any inexpensive solution that does not create an inconvenience for them. This is not only my experience in every strata complex that I have ever lived, it is also the experience of absolutely anyone else that I know that has lived in a strata complex. Of course, this isn't a problem if you live in a house, but then you are looking at prices that are sometimes 3-4 times as much, often even more, and likely not achievable for those who have found owning a condo to be adequate in the first place. Oh, many condo owners would certainly love to have electric chargers so they could get an electric vehicle, but most aren't willing to front the thousands of dollars in assessments that it will cost them, and most wouldn't be willing to move their parking space either to allow a charger to be installed there for someone else to use unless there was some other advantage for them, personally. You entirely overlook and discount the human tendency to be selfish and to often stubbornly or even ignorantly resist change, and the minority of progressive thinkers of this generation is simply not influential enough at this time to overcome that. Only time will change this... as much of the older generation of people who currently own their homes dies off and a younger generation replaces them that was raised with the necessary ideals to make it a reality... but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen because it's not anytime soon. I'd place it probably before the turn of the next century, but I can't say I expect to be around that long.
I live in Canada, by the way... I assumed that might have been obvious given the reference I cited and linked to from plugndrive.ca.
I think that this quote from a Gizmodo article puts the problem in perspective.
Private above-ground garages, yes... underground shared concrete parkade parking not so much.... In a condo situation where each stall is individually owned (I prefer to restrict the issue at hand only to owned, rather than rented properties, because renters have very little choice or say in how their property might get developed), if you install only a couple of them in a visitor parking area, then the demand would quickly grow to exceed its availability, necessitating that more be installed. It is cheapest, to install as many as will ever be needed for the foreseeable future, but that means installing them in the stalls for the residents, which is grossly unfair to owners that did not get an electric outlet in their own stall, not to mention being an unpopular idea among those who had not considered previously considered getting an electric car (even though they very might if the facilities were already available for them..... people love to mooch, after all).
The only fair thing is to install metered electrical outlets in each stall, and where there is no existing wiring or often not even the electrical infrastructure to support it (requiring the municipality to bring in more electrical infrastructure to a community that may have been around for fifty to a hundred years or more), this is *NOT* cheap. A building in an older part of a large city that has high density population could cost upwards of a million dollars to properly upgrade, and this results in an assessment (on the order of about $10k) on all of the owners that only those with intention to buy an electric car in the near future would benefit from. Considering that strata regulations (governed federally) require 75% or more approval from all owners to approve such an assesssment unless the expenditure was required by law, guess how long it will be before that happens? It wouldn't be happening any sooner than before the lack of such charging facilities made the units unsellable.
Thisk is the research I have done on costs which estimates that costs for installation would run anywhere from $5600 to over $15k per stall, depending on the amount of infrastructure that already exists to support it. Older communities will tend towards the more expensive side of things due to the lack of existing infrastructure. Newer buildings have the facilities, but most do not.
Of course, you may be inclined to discount the entire country where I live as some kind of backwater nation, but don't assume that I wouldn't find such an evaluation to be a bit insulting.
Since you mentioned that most apartment dwellers wont even own cars in 20 years, I'd like to point out that *still* leaves no incentive for apartment owners of most currently existing buildings to *ever* install EV facilities, because they will always only potentially be of benefit to a tiny few. Even then, it will still often be more economical for people to own their own car than ride share, just as it is more economical to drive than to take a cab. Public transit may be cheaper than owning and driving a car, but may be considerably less convenient, because there may not be a direct transit route to one's place of work and what is already a 25 minute commute time is doubled or tripled (although truly this depends on where one works vs where one lives.... I used to work at one place where I could hop on the transit and be at work in 20 minutes door to door, and driving offered no real savings over this).
Sincerely, however, if there were a place for me to charge it overnight, I'd have no qualms at all with an EV being my next car.... and given that a lot of people *do* live in multiunit dwellings that *were* built more than about 10 years or so when the infrastructure for supporting these kinds of facilities started getting put in while the building is being built, I do not think I am an atypical use case.
The changeover to electric vehicles will eventually happen, sure... but it is happening slowly, and I'd be shocked as hell if it ever going to be practical in my lifetime. I'm not saying that because that's what I want, I'm saying that because I think that believing otherwise is simply too idealistic a viewpoint to be rationally sustainable... Isolated examples might exist of exceptions to this in very progressive areas, but they are not typically reflective of most metropolitan areas that may have many multi-family buildings such as apartments or condos that are 50 years older or more with concrete-enclosed underground parking, that are still in excellent condition and have many decades of life left and are not going anywhere.
Actually, given that more than 75% of the people in my metro area (and many others, for that matter) live in apartments or condos, and of those, only a very tiny minority live in buildings that were constructed recently enough (past 10 years or so) to adopt the newer guidelines of having electrical outlets in each parking stall, I don't think that my use case is that atypical. It's not an insurmountable issue for people with private garages, but many people do not have those.
I'm reminded of an anecdote. from wired. The point is well made.. at a line-up in a gas-station, each person you are behind is going to cost you maybe 5 minutes of your time, while at an electric charging station, you may as well just leave and try to find another one somewhere else because unless you are next, it could be hours before you get to charge.
And in a kind of catch-22, the rate at which new public charging stations are added is limited by the number of electric cars out there, and the number of people who buy electric cars is going to be limited by the availability of convenient charging outlets.
Sure it will probably happen eventually.... but remember, it took over a century for motorized vehicles to become the norm over horses. I would be very surprised if the existing inertia of using a gasoline infrastructure were to be overcome in my lifetime.
No... not at all... It is further entirely incorrect to assume that the people who do not vote intended to side with what the majority turned out to be.... at most you might assume that they intended to side with what they *believed* before the vote that the majority would actually vote for. Given how tight the actual vote was, it is a tenuous proposition to presume that what happened was actually what most people truly believed would happen. This may very well be true, but it is very nearly as likely (48% vs 52%, based on the vote outcome) that it is not, and a probability that close to 50% when there are only two choices makes it impossible to meaningfully infer or predict anything.
Thus, as I said... the results of the vote are simply the results of a democratic process... any similarity between the outcome and the actual will of the people may be fortunate, but is truly quite coincidental,